US v. Cephus Pierce, No. 08-8254 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 22, 2010.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8254 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CEPHUS PIERCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00474-CWH-24) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cephus Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cephus order denying Pierce his seeks motion U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). for to appeal reduction the of district sentence court s under 18 In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. judgment. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding applies). is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order denying motion for reduction of sentence on September 23, 2008. filed the ten-day notice period neglect period. of appeal expired but on October within the 15, 2008, thirty-day the Pierce after the excusable Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Pierce has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 2 ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
